Geocentric Universe?

[cassini]

Rejection and Rebuttals

Dr Arthur Lynch, the distinguished mathematician, wrote:

‘The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a “curve” from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory. Neither curve has any justification.’— Arthur Lynch: The Case Against Einstein, 1932, p.264C

And if that is not hilarious enough, Professor Charles Lane Poor really spills the beans on the tricksters:

‘The table showing displacement of individual stars shows that on average the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differ by 19% from the calculated Einstein value. In the place of two stars the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect… in other cases however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [from the calculated Einsteinian value]. The diagrams show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the report… But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and the predicted displacements.’ —.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226.

Professor Poor then goes on to tell us that the Relativists tried to claim the differences between the predicted and observed shifts are no greater than should be expected. Consequently, ‘This very question was investigated by Dr Henry Davies Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of Relativity theory.’ After ‘an exhaustive examination’ he found the differences are real, and were contradictory.

‘The results given in the Report for the observations are the means (average) of the radial components (direction towards or away from the sun) only, nothing whatever being given to the directions in which the actual displacements took place. The Einstein theory requires a deflection, not only of a certain definite component, but also in a certain observed direction. To discuss the amount of the observed deflection is to discuss only one-half of the whole question, and the less important half at that. The observed deflection might agree exactly with the predicted amount, but, if it were in the wrong direction, it would disprove, not prove, the Relativity theory. You cannot reach Washington from New York by travelling south, even if you do go the requisite number of miles.’

But the Royal Society, as we have already seen, has long been taking homo consensus to Washington from New York travelling south, west and east.

‘Now the diagrams of the seven best plates, the seven taken at Sobral with the 4-inch camera, show clearly and definitely that the observed deflections are not in the directions required by the Einstein theory… The relativists either totally disregard these discordances, or invoke the heating effect of the sun to distort the vision by just the proper amount to explain them away.’

Find something that can be said to cause the problem by ‘just the proper amount’ and that explains it. Recall this ploy was used to explain the Airy and Michelson & Morley failures. But then Poor offered another solution to ‘starlight-bending’, one Cassini was well aware of back in 1650.

‘Further… there are other perfectly possible explanations of a deflection of a ray of light; explanations based on every-day, common-place grounds. Abnormal refraction in the earth’s atmosphere is one; refraction of the solar envelope is another…Such is the evidence, and are the observations, which according to Einstein, “confirm the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.’----C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226

 

[cassini]

Believe me i think all that is nearly as unreasonable

With a name like Charles Darwin I am not surprised at what you find reasonable or unreasonable.

 

[cassini]

I got another question, if everything orbits the earth (haha) then why are many other galaxies spirals?

Charles, we are not suggesting a Ptolemaic universe but a tychonic with adjustments to comply with stellar parallax. Such questions above show a lack of understanding of the matter.

 

[cassini]

Oh and why do the other plants have smaller 360 degree turns within there orbits of the earth?

Plants do not orbit the earth, they grow on it.

 

[cassini]

Oh yeah and why is it when man was on the moon that they saw earth spinning and orbiting the sun ?

It is called relative motion. This relative motion is why empirical science cannot tell whether the sun orbits the earth or if the earth orbits the sun. It is the same relativity that proves the Copernican revolution is a fraudulent one, based on fooling humanity, including Churchmen since 1741, that heliocentricism is a proven fact.

 

[Luke65]

I got another question, if everything orbits the earth (haha) then why are many other galaxies spirals?

If the Earth orbits the sun, then why does the moon orbit the Earth?

Oh and why do the other plants have smaller 360 degree turns within there orbits of the earth?

They don’t orbit the Earth - read the thread.

Oh yeah and why is it when man was on the moon that they saw earth spinning and orbiting the sun ?

They did? I was under the impression that the moon was orbiting Earth. Maybe I should amend my previous answer. And how could they tell if Earth was orbiting the sun, or the sun was orbiting Earth?

 

[cassini]

If the sun revolves round the earth every 24 hours, explain one thing please. What causes the seasons?

 If we observe the sun, we find it rises in the east every day, passes overhead and disappears as it sets in the west. To save the appearance then, using a north/south axis, we ‘save’ the sun as orbiting the earth once every day.

Then we notice that the sun has a second movement. In the space of one year the sun moves in a northerly direction and then goes back south. This is explained as the sun orbiting the earth while causing it to pass directly over the Equator in March, then over point 23.5 degrees north of the Equator (Tropic of Cancer) in June, then back over the Equator in September and finally over a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (Tropic of Capricorn) in January before returning to the Equator in March

The sun orbits daily and also continuously spirals north and south and back again, completing this latter motion once every 365 days or so.

Like a precision instrument the sun delivers spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn

 

[Luke_K]

Hi Luke K, tell us about ‘all other solar systems observed in the universe’. How were they observed? Can you expalin to me how solar systems can be ‘observed’? I thought stars were just ‘points of light’ to human observation.

Both the sun and a planet orbit around their common center of mass (which is about 450km from the sun), because both exert equal but opposite forces on each other. Astronomers use this effect to detect the presence of planets orbiting other stars. Sensitive telescopes are able to detect the apparent “wobble” of a star as it orbits the common center of mass of the star and an unseen companion planet. By analyzing these wobbles, astronomers have discovered planets in orbit around more than a hundred other stars.

When you think about it, the idea that the basic laws of motion we’ve discovered here on laboratory tabletops apply to the planets and the rest of the universe, is really one of the most awe-inspiring things about God’s creation.

 

[Luke_K]

If the Earth orbits the sun, then why does the moon orbit the Earth?

They don’t orbit the Earth - read the thread.

They did? I was under the impression that the moon was orbiting Earth. Maybe I should amend my previous answer. And how could they tell if Earth was orbiting the sun, or the sun was orbiting Earth?

The moon does not orbit the earth. They both orbit their center of mass (which is about 1700km below the surface of the earth), and both dance around each other as they orbit around the center of mass between the earth and sun (which is about 450km away from the center of the sun).

It’s just a very reasonable simplification to say that the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun.

 

[Luke_K]

I hope this simple mathematical exercise settles the matter to those who believe that the sun orbits the earth every 24 hours:

Let’s assume that the sun orbits the earth in uniform circular motion every 24 hours.

The average distance between the earth and the sun is 1.5*10^11 meters.

To find the total distance that the sun travels in this 24 hours, find the circumference of the circular orbit, pidiameter: 2(1.5*10^11m)pi = 9.42510^11m.

To find the velocity, simple take this distance divided by the 86400 seconds in a day to get 1.09*10^7 meters/second.

Now, in order for an object to maintain uniform circular motion (i.e. not fly off), there must be an acceleration towards the center, also known as radial acceleration. This of course implies there is a force supplying this acceleration since there is a mass, and force = mass*acceleration.

In uniform circular motion, radial acceleration = velocity^2 / radius. This is entirely mathematical- no empirical data necessary.

So we have the velocity of the sun and it’s orbital radius. Plugging in those numbers, we get the necessary acceleration to be 793 m/s^2. If the acceleration is anything other than this, the sun will not stay in orbit around the earth.

As stated above, this acceleration has to be supplied by a force, which must come from the gravitational attraction between the earth and the sun. The gravitational force between any two bodies is determined by the equation F = G*([mass1mass2]/radius^2) where G is the gravitational constant 6.6710^-11.

Plugging in the numbers, with the mass of the sun being 1.9910^30kg and the earth being 5.9710^24kg, we get the gravitational attraction between the earth and the sun to be 3.52*10^22 Newtons. This is the force that each body exerts on the other.

Now force = massacceleration. So we take the 3.5210^22 Newtons of force divided by the 1.9910^30 kg mass of the sun, and we get an acceleration due to gravity of **1.7610^-8 m/s^2.** This is 44800000000 times smaller than it has to be for the sun to orbit the earth in uniform circular motion every 24 hours!

To find our percent error, we take the theoretical value for the acceleration (the one based on the orbital velocity and uniform circular motion) minus our actual value (the one obtained from the force of gravity), divided by the theoretical value. So, (793 - 1.76*10^-8) / 793 = 99.9999…% error!

However, we perform this same exercise again but with the assumption that the earth orbits the sun every 365 days.

The necessary values we get are 29886.5m/s for the orbital speed, and .005955m/s^2 for the necessary radial acceleration to keep the earth in orbit.

Now we apply the Force = mass* acceleration principle again. The force was 3.5210^22 Newtons, divided by the earth’s mass of 5.9710^24 kg, and we get a radial acceleration due to gravity of .005899 m/s^2.

We do the same method to find our percent error, and we get 0.94% error.

Now which assumption seems more reasonable?

The bottom line here: For the sun to orbit the earth every 24 hours requires a radial acceleration that cannot be exerted by the force of gravity from the earth. But for the earth to orbit the sun every 365 days requires a radial acceleration that is exactly (within 0.94% error due to measurements) what the gravitational force exerts!

 

[JimG]

Luke K: Your argument will not work. When you consider that geocentrists believe that not only the Sun but the most distant star in the cosmos, perhaps some 6 billion light years distant, also orbits the earth every 24 hours, I sense that your calculations will have little effect.

I can’t believe that a discussion of geocentrism has gone on for this long, and that I have added to it!

 

[Luke_K]

Here’s some additional math to further convince you geocentrists. First off, some preparation of the variables and equations I will be using.

As I stated in my above post, the only force acting significantly between the sun and the earth is the gravitational force. The force of gravity follows the law of F = G*([mass1*mass2]/distance^2). This is Newton’s law of gravitation. It is an inverse square force law. If you wish to dispute it, you must dismantle calculus, basic math, basic physics, and all observations of planetary motion. Also, say goodbye to your bathroom scale for measuring your weight. Good luck.

The universal gravity constant is an empirically measured value. Look up what a Cavendish balance is.

The radius of the earth was determined in 200 BC. Indisputable.

Force = mass * acceleration. Indisputable.

Centripetal acceleration = velocity^2 / radius. Indisputable.

g = acceleration due to earth’s gravity on the earth’s surface =9.81 m/s^2. This is incredibly simple to measure. Just drop something (in a vacuum chamber to get rid of air resistance) and measure time and distance.

The distance from earth to sun can be measured empirically by bouncing radio waves off of Venus, determining that distance, and applying trigonometry using the sun, earth, and venus as a triangle.

For uniform circular motion to be maintained, radial acceleration = velocity^2 / radius. Indisputable. (the math for elliptical orbits is more complicated, but this is irrelevant)

Now for some more math. I’ll work with the assumption that the sun orbits the earth every 24 hours.

As I explained in my above post, the force of gravity serves as the centripetal (radial) force in an orbit.

So in order for the sun to orbit the earth every 24 hours, G*([earth mass* sun mass])/radius of orbit^2 = sun mass*(velocity^2 / radius of orbit) (i.e. gravitational force = centripetal force)

Simplifying this equation, the mass of the sun cancels out and we get: earth mass = (orbital velocity of sun^2 * orbital radius) / G.

Plugging in the numbers, we get the mass of earth to be 2.68*10^35 kg.

However, let’s look at another way for calculating the mass of the earth that doesn’t directly depend on the earth orbiting the sun or vice versa.

The force of gravity on yourself here at the surface of the earth is equal to G*([your mass* earth mass]/radius of earth^2. Set this equal to your mass * the acceleration of gravity on earth (which is the equal and opposite force), and you get G* (earth mass/ radius^2) = acceleration of gravity on earth.

Now you can solve for the mass of the earth. Plug in the numbers, and you get the mass of the earth to be about 6.0*10^24 kg.

This is a discrepancy in mass of 268000000000000000000000000000000000 kg (after rounding).

Bottom line: Making the assumption that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours mathematically yields a mass for the earth that does not agree whatsoever with a calculation for the earth’s mass that does not depend on orbits.

 

[Luke_K]

Luke K: Your argument will not work. When you consider that geocentrists believe that not only the Sun but the most distant star in the cosmos, perhaps some 6 billion light years distant, also orbits the earth every 24 hours, I sense that your calculations will have little effect.

I can’t believe that a discussion of geocentrism has gone on for this long, and that I have added to it!

I have demonstrated using basic math and fundamental forces of physics that it is nonsensical for the sun to orbit the earth every 24 hours.

cassini, Luke65, and buffalo claim to be rational individuals, so I hope my argument will appeal to them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have demonstrated using basic math and fundamental forces of physics that it is nonsensical for the sun to orbit the earth every 24 hours.

You also used really exciting font sizes. If the logic and coherence of your position doesn’t convince them, maybe the font sizes and colors will.

 

[Luke_K]

It’s time for the final nail in the coffin. I will now show that the assumption that the sun revolves around the center of mass between the earth and the sun, which is 450km from the center of the sun, yields the correct value for the mass of the earth, and the correct value for the centripetal acceleration of the sun around this center of mass.

The sun orbits/wobbles around the center of mass between the earth in the sun, which is 450km from the center of the sun, which is also quite a ways inside of the sun. It completes this wobble every 365 days.

The distance traveled in this wobble is the diameter of the circle: 2*(450000m)pi = 2.8320^6m.

This distance traveled over 365 days = .089657 m/s.

Now in order for the sun to maintain this circular orbit it requires a centripetal acceleration of .089657^2 / 450000m = 1.78610^-8 m/s^2. In my first mathematical demonstration, I showed that the gravitational force between the earth and sun yields a centripetal acceleration on the sun of 1.768810^-8 m/s^2. This is an error of 0.98%

Now for the mass of the earth.

The “gravitational force on sun = centripetal force on sun” equation is G*(earth mass* sun mass) / earth orbital radius^2 = sun mass* (sun orbital velocity^2 / sun orbital radius). Simplifying and plugging in the numbers that result from the assumption that the sun orbits around the earth-sun center of mass, we obtain a value for the mass of earth of 6.02581*10^24 kg. Comparing this to the mass of the earth determined through the non-orbital method, we get an error of 0.026%

Bottom line: The assumption that the sun revolves around the center of mass between the earth and the sun yields the correct value for the mass of the earth, and the correct value for the centripetal acceleration of the sun around this center of mass. The assumption that the sun revolves around the earth yields vastly incorrect values for these properties.

If my reasoning and math make sense to you, please do not be unwilling to accept it. It does not go against our Catholic faith to accept this stuff.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It is called relative motion. This relative motion is why empirical science cannot tell whether the sun orbits the earth or if the earth orbits the sun. It is the same relativity that proves the Copernican revolution is a fraudulent one, based on fooling humanity, including Churchmen since 1741, that heliocentricism is a proven fact.

No, for from the moon we can clearly see the earth SPINS and the sun DOES NOT orbit the earth every 24 hours. Are you for real?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles, we are not suggesting a Ptolemaic universe but a tychonic with adjustments to comply with stellar parallax. Such questions above show a lack of understanding of the matter.

Well actually I have seen a few thing suggested. I do find it most humorous to be accused of not understanding by some one that believes that the earth is the center of the universe.

 

[Luke65]

It’s time for the final nail in the coffin.

Don’t worry, you’re not the first one to think they had driven the “final nail in the coffin” of Geocentrism, and you surely won’t be the last. I don’t do math, but I can see that you’re making a centuries old error in forgetting that there is a whole universe outside of our Earth/sun system that affects both the Earth and sun. Maybe you’ll listen to Fred…

…Hoyle reveals the crux of the debate between heliocentrism and geocentrism. He begins:
…If our feeling that the Earth really goes around the Sun, not the Sun around the Earth, has any objective validity, there must be some important physical property, expressible in precise mathematical terms, which emerges in the heliocentric picture but not in a geocentric one. What can this property be?1070
Thus far, even though he is a heliocentrist by preference who is looking for some proof of his system, Hoyle has been fair with his geocentric counterpart. What other avowed heliocentrists ridicule as “absurd,” Hoyle counts as a viable alternative.
…
Since, as Hoyle admits, in the geocentric system the universe rotates around the Earth and carries the sun with it, it follows that both the sun and the stars will form an annual epicyclic path with respect to the Earth. As we suggested earlier, the epicycles may exist because there is a designed imbalance in the distribution of matter in the universe that will subsequently cause a precession or wobble in the rotation, which in turn will help produce the periodic movement that we experience practically on Earth as the four seasons. In this view, the universe is much like a spinning gyroscope that wobbles when it begins to tilt, or when it is disturbed while rotating; or has an additional weight at one point on its circumference.
…
Hoyle is reiterating one of the most commonly used arguments to support the heliocentric theory. Based on Newton’s inverse-square law, it is ordinarily assumed that a massive body like the sun could not possibly revolve around the tiny Earth. Thus, for the moment, Hoyle seems to be giving credence to the heliocentric theory over the geocentric. In reality, he is only setting up the means by which one will be able to discern the flaws in this traditional thinking. He continues:
Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions between planets, we find - again in order to calculate correctly - that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which included the star. The “center” in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the “center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes.1071
By this analysis Hoyle has admitted one very important discovery of modern cosmology, that is, the stars affect what occurs in our sun-Earth system. This is not difficult even for a heliocentrist to understand, since in his system the sun is revolving around the Milky Way at a speed of about 500,000 miles per hour (which is about eight times faster than he believes the Earth is revolving around the sun). If the sun must travel so fast in order to equal the Milky Way’s pull toward the center, then it can be safely said that the mass of stars at the core of the galaxy have a great effect on the sun, and in turn, a great effect on the planets going around the sun. Hoyle, for simplicity’s sake, confined his example to “a star…moderately close to the solar system,” but in reality, there are billions of stars in the universe; and each one, however small, has an effect on our sun-Earth system. As such, the stars must be strategically placed in the universe in order to allow the proper balance of forces to be maintained in the sun-Earth system. No doubt this is implied in such Scriptural passages as Psalm 147:4: “He determines the number of the stars, he gives to all of them their names,” or Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars. He who brings out their host by number. He calls them all by name; by the greatness of His might, and by the strength of his power, not one is missing.”

We can draw two more points from the foregoing information. First, since the stars produce forces affecting our sun-Earth system, then it would be logical to conclude that the forces we experience in our locale are, in part, a product of the conglomeration of stellar forces acting upon us. This means that such things as the inverse-square law, centrifugal force, Coriolis force, and any other force or momentum we calculate on Earth must in part be a result of the forces surrounding us from the universe. As Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have stated it: "Mass there governs inertia here."1072 For example, although the inverse-square law is normally understood as being the ratio of the mass to the distance of two or more local objects (e.g., sun and Earth), in reality, the formula Gm_1m_2/r^2 implicitly includes the mass, force, and distance of all the universe’s stars, as well as the objects in the immediate locale under consideration.
…
It would certainly require an infinite mind to see everything at once and calculate all the interacting forces so that every object could be placed in its proper position in the universe. Modern science certainly can raise no objection to the possibility of such a universe, for its very laws give it sanction. In fact, as photographs of the universe show, there may be a good reason why the distribution of stars in some places of the universe is not isotropic, that is, why various sections of the universe contain no stars, and other parts contain huge clumps of stars. These variations are not accidental but are the precise distribution patterns required in order to maintain the forces that keep Earth as the barycenter in the midst of a sun and planets that are whirling about its equatorial plane.

(Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Vol. I, p.349-358)

 

[Luke65]

Wikipedia:

Non-falsifiability of geocentrism

If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The moon orbits the earth every 27 days, it is a relatively stable platform to view this from. So we KNOW the sun does not orbit the earth every 24 hours, we KNOW the earth is spinning. We have observed this.

I cannot believe people are actually trying to say the whole universe orbits the earth everyday.